"McF" 2000-2009 Marriage

McFADDEN m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2006-05-20 published
McFADDEN,
Ruby and Charles - 60th Wedding Anniversary
May 25, 1946-2006 Woodstock, formerly of Wallaceburg
A family gathering will be held in Ancaster followed by a cruise
to Bermuda. Love and best wishes from your family.

McFALLS m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2003-07-12 published
McFALLS /
OIKAWA
Carole and the late Richard
McFALLS of London, Ontario and Mary
and Tricky
OIKAWA of Picture Butte, Alberta are pleased to announce
the forthcoming marriage of thier children Carole Anne and Dean.
The wedding will take place at Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada
on August 19, 2003.

McFARLANE m@ca.on.york_county.toronto.toronto_star 2003-03-20 published
Carol and Christopher
McFARLANE and Barbara and James
SUTTON
Announce with pleasure the engagement of their children Samantha
Anne and Robert Shawn On Thursday, March 13, 2003

McPHEE m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2003-03-29 published
Forthcoming Marriage -
VERWEGEN /
JEFFERYWe're bubbling with news... Christine
VERWEGEN, daughter of Donna
& Jeff MacPHEE and the late Hurb
VERWEGEN and Mike
JEFFERY, son of
Carol and Steve
JEFFERY, are engaged to be married July 12, 2003.
You mean the world to us.
Love from the Whole Family.

McPHERSON m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2006-05-20 published
MILES /
MacPHERSON -- Engagement
The parents of Alison
MILES and Shane
MacPHERSON are thrilled
to announce their engagement. A 2007 wedding is planned. We all
love you both and wish you all the best. Love The Entire Family

McPHERSON m@ca.on.york_county.toronto.globe_and_mail 2003-06-11 published
Gay marriage is legalized
Ontario appeal court rewrites law, says couples must be given
licences
Activists are ecstatic, Ottawa faces tight deadline to decide
on appeal
KLEIN rejects ruling, says he'll invoke notwithstanding clause
in Alberta
By Kirk MAKIN Justice Reporter; With reports from Mark
HUME in
Kelowna, and Canadian Press Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - Page A1
The exclusion of gays from the institution of marriage is illogical,
offensive and unjustifiable, the Ontario Court of Appeal said
yesterday in a historic judgment that makes same-sex marriages
legal for the first time in Canada.
The ruling took effect immediately in Ontario -- two gay men
were married yesterday in a Toronto court -- increasing the pressure
on the federal government to consider legislation on same-sex
unions or go to the Supreme Court. A decision on the latter option
must be made by June 30.
AlbertaPremierRalphKLEIN boosted the stakes further, saying
his province is not about to recognize same-sex marriages as
legal, and will invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution
to override any court ruling recognizing a right to such marriages.
"If there is any move to sanctify and legalize same-sex marriages,
we will use the notwithstanding clause, period, end of story,"
Mr. KLEIN said at the Western Premiers Conference in Kelowna,
B.C.
The Ontario court methodically dismantled every argument made
before it in support of heterosexual-only marriages. It refused
even to permit a grace period for Ontario to bring its laws into
conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Courts in
British Columbia and Quebec have also struck down marriage laws,
but gave the governments time to rewrite their legislation.
The Ontario judges said denying same-sex marriage is tantamount
to declaring homosexuals a lesser order of being, helping to
perpetuate an impression that gays and lesbians are incapable
of forming loving relationships.
"A purpose that demeans the dignity of same-sex couples is contrary
to the values of a free and democratic society and cannot be
pressing and substantial," said Chief Justice Roy
McMURTRY,
Mr.
Justice James
MacPHERSON and Madam Justice Eileen
GILLESE.
"Same-sex couples are capable of forming long, lasting, loving
and intimate relationships. A law that prohibits same-sex couples
from marrying does not accord with the needs, capacities and
circumstances of same-sex couples."
The judges ordered Toronto's city clerk and the provincial registrar-general
to issue and accept marriage licences for two couples married
under the Christian tradition of publication of banns in 2001
-- Joe VARNELL and Kevin
BOURASSA; and Elaine and Anne
VAUTOUR
-- making them the first gay marriages in the country.
Henceforth, the court ordered the definition of marriage in Ontario
to be "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion
of all others."
The ruling was the culmination of decades of strategic prodding
by gay couples, associations and legal activists. All were ecstatic
yesterday over the strength of the Ontario ruling.
"This is why people come to Canada," said Michael
LESHNER, who
married his partner, Michael
STARK, within hours of the ruling.
"They marvel at our values. We have sent an unmistakable message
that love can conquer all."
"It's a momentous day," said Kyle
RAE, a gay Toronto city councillor.
"It is a great day for equality in Canada."
A lawyer for the couples, Martha
McCARTHY, predicted many more
marriages in the days ahead, while the federal government ponders
a possible appeal. "The more marriages we get, the more inevitable
this is," she said in an interview. "The time to be right is
ripe, as Martin Luther
KING would say."
Courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have now overturned
marriage laws. But the rulings in British Columbia and Quebec
did not take effect immediately because they allowed governments
until mid-2004 to redraft the laws.
A final clash is now possible before a Supreme Court of Canada
bench that has steadily established a reputation for defending
gay rights. The federal government has only until June 30 to
decide whether to appeal the British Columbia ruling. The Liberal
government is also expecting a report this week from a parliamentary
committee examining same-sex marriage.
PrimeMinisterJeanCHRÉTIEN said yesterday Justice Minister
Martin CAUCHON is looking at the judgment along with the other
rulings, and said it is too early to know whether it will be
appealed.
Mr. CAUCHON said Ottawa recognizes it must move quickly toward
a "national solution" to the same-sex debate.
"We see the direction that the courts are taking now," Mr.
CAUCHON
said after a cabinet meeting. "I'm asking for a little bit of
time to look at the decision and to come back with a statement."
The Ontario Court of Appeal was not in a mood for patience, and
it was not willing to run the risk that provincial legislators
would devise wording to circumvent their ruling.
"A temporary suspension allows a state of affairs that has been
found to violate standards embodied in the Charter to persist
for a time despite the violation," the court said.
It also pointed out that were it simply to render the entire
law invalid, gay people would be vulnerable to the wrath of heterosexuals
who found themselves temporarily denied the benefits of marriage.
The decision rested on the constitutional right to equality and
emphasized the "dignity" of individuals.
Launched by eight same-sex couples, the litigation had targeted
a common-law definition of marriage as a union between "one man
and one woman." The couples won their challenge in Ontario's
Divisional Court, but it, too, suspended its ruling for two years.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal specifically rejected arguments
that procreation is an integral pillar of marriage.
"Same-sex couples can choose to have children through adoption,
surrogacy and donor insemination," the judges reasoned. "Importantly,
procreation and child-rearing are not the only purposes of marriage,
or the only reason why couples choose to marry. The opposite-sex
requirement in marriage is not rationally connected to the encouragement
of procreation and child-rearing."
They said government lawyers offered mere speculation instead
of proof to show why the exclusion of same-sex marriages was
a valid social objective -- and that the definition of marriage
was far from a minimal infringement.
What Canadian think about gay issues
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the right to
marry should be extended to same-sex couples.
Recent surveys have produced the following results:
Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
Support Oppose
Males (18-34) 61.2% 33.9%
Females (18-34) 69.2% 22.2%
If the Supreme Court of Canada said that the federal government
had to give gays and lesbians the right to be married, do you
think that the government should or should not use its power
to overrule the court's decision?
Should Should not
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal rights for
women and ethnic and religious minorities and other groups. In
your opinion, should the Charter also guarantee rights for gays
and lesbians?
Yes No
Note: Graphic does not include respondents who did not know or
who refused to answer.
source: Centre For Research And Information On Canada

McPHERSON m@ca.on.york_county.toronto.toronto_star 2003-06-11 published
Gay couple married after ruling
Couple celebrates end of 20-year fight
Judges rewrite definition of marriage
Tracey TYLER and Tracy
HUFFMANStaffReporters
Two gay men said "I do" yesterday, after Ontario's highest court
said "they can."
CrownAttorneyMichaelLESHNER and his long-time partner Michael
STARK were married by Mr. Justice John
HAMILTON in a hastily
arranged ceremony in the jury waiting room of a Toronto courthouse,
as a crowd that included everyone from judges to janitors looked
on.
Just hours before, the Ontario Court of Appeal rewrote the definition
of marriage to include same-sex couples, saying denying gays
and lesbians the ability to marry offends their dignity, discriminates
on the basis of sexual orientation and violates their equality
rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A unanimous three-judge panel, made up of Chief Justice Roy
McMURTRY
and justices James
MacPHERSON and Eileen
GILLESE, then took the
issue further than any other court in the world.
Gay and lesbian marriage became legal in Ontario, effective immediately.
"Michael LESHNER, will you please repeat after me," said
HAMILTON,
as he began the short, civil ceremony. "I do solemnly declare
that I do not know of any lawful impediment why I may not be
joined in matrimony to Michael Clifford
STARK."
Both men repeated the declaration before pledging their vows.
"I Michael, take you Michael, to be my lawful wedded spouse,"
said LESHNER. "To have and to hold, from this day forward, whatever
circumstances or experiences life may hold for us."
HAMILTON, an Ontario Superior Court judge, asked both men to
place rings on each other's fingers, then made it official.
"By the power vested in me by the Marriage Act, I pronounce you
Michael, and you Michael -- affectionately known as 'the Michaels'
-- to be lawfully wedded spouses."
"You are now married," said
HAMILTON, who later said it was "an
honour" to perform the ceremony.
LESHNER, 55, and
STARK, 45, kissed and popped champagne.
Speaking to reporters,
LESHNER said he regards the court's judgment
as, "Day One for millions of gays and lesbians around the world"
and the culmination of a personal 20-year battle to end "legally
sanctioned homophobia."
"I wanted to put a stake through that sucker," he said.
His 90-year-old mother, Ethel, who beamed and sang in her wheelchair,
drew her satisfaction on a smaller scale.
"I feel wonderful, if he does. And I'm sure he does -- take a
look at his face," she said.
"I can't 'rah, rah, rah.' I'm not the type of person to do that,"
she said. "I'm just happy my son is happy -- I know he's getting
a nice guy."
While LESHNER and
STARK are believed to be the first gay couple
to wed after same-sex marriage became legal yesterday, they may
not be the first gay Ontario couple to be legally married. That
distinction appears to fall to two same-sex couples who were
married in a double ceremony at Toronto's Metropolitan Community
Church in January, 2001.
The appeal court ordered the province to register marriage certificates
issued to those couples, Kevin
BOURASSA and Joe
VARNELL and Elaine
and Anne VAUTOUR.
The judges also ordered the clerk of the City
of Toronto to issue marriage licences to
LESHNER and
STARK and
six other couples whose licence applications were held in abeyance
pending a ruling by the courts. The province and the city told
the judges during a hearing in April that they would abide by
whatever the appeal court decided.
Less clear is where the federal government stands.
JusticeMinisterMartinCAUCHON told reporters yesterday he believes
Members of Parliament should have a say in the debate about same-sex
marriage, but the government also sees where courts across the country
are heading on the issue.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal and a Quebec Superior Court
judge have also ruled the common law definition of marriage violates
the Charter's equality provisions, but didn't go as far as Ontario
in immediately extending marriage to same-sex couples, preferring
instead to give Parliament until July, 2004 to change the law.
The Ontario Court of Appeal said there's no need to wait: Changing
the definition of marriage, effective immediately, won't create
any public harm.
Federal justice department spokesperson Dorette
POLLARD said
the government has until September 9 to decide whether to seek
leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the meantime, the government does not have the option of seeking
a court injunction to stop same-sex marriages from taking place,
she said.
If a further appeal to the Supreme Court is in the cards, it
could return to the Court of Appeal to ask for a stay of yesterday's
ruling, effectively putting it in suspension,
POLLARD said.
She was unable to say how that would affect same-sex marriages
that have already taken place.
Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, had no difficulty expressing
an opinion on yesterday's decision.
By reformulating the definition of marriage, the appeal court
ignored "centuries of precedent" and rendered "ordinary Canadians'
views irrelevant," said Derek
ROGUSKY, a vice-president of Focus
on the Family, whose interests were represented by The Association
for Marriage and the Family in Ontario, an intervenor in the
case.
In its decision yesterday, written not by one judge in particular
but collectively as "the court," the appeal panel changed the
definition of marriage from being "the voluntary union for life
of one man and one woman," to "the voluntary union for life of
two persons to the exclusion of all others."
A person's sense of dignity and self worth can only be enhanced
by the recognition that society gives to marriage and denying
people in same-sex relationships access to that most basic of
institutions violates their dignity, the court said.
"The ability to marry, and to thereby participate in this fundamental
societal institution, is something that most Canadians take for
granted. Same-sex couples do not; they are denied access to this
institution simply on the basis of their sexual orientation."
Preventing same-sex couples from marrying perpetuates the view
that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships
and not worthy of the same respect and recognition as heterosexual
couples, the court added.
It was ruling on an appeal from an Ontario Divisional Court decision
last year. The Divisional Court said the common law definition
of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union was unconstitutional,
but decided 2-1 to leave it up to Parliament to rewrite the law
by July, 2004.
The dissenting judge in that case, Mr. Justice Harry
LAFORME,
who would have changed the definition immediately, attended yesterday's
ceremony.
In its 60-page decision yesterday, the judges systematically
disposed of Ottawa's arguments for preserving marriage as a heterosexual
domain, saying they were filled with irrelevancies, stereotypes
and "circular reasoning."
The government argued that marriage has always been understood
as a special kind of monogamous institution that brings the sexes
together for the purposes of procreating, raising children and
companionship.
That isn't something that lawmakers dreamed up; it predates the
law, the government said.
Who invented the concept of marriage doesn't matter, the court
said; What does is how gays and lesbians fare under a legal regime
that excludes them from the institution.
The government was avoiding the main issue by arguing that marriage
"just is" heterosexual and benefits society as a whole, the court
said.
"The couples are not seeking to abolish the institution of marriage,"
wrote the judges. "They are seeking access to it."
With files from Mary
GORDON